I blogged awhile back about the imminent release of the last film in Deepa Mehta’s elemental trilogy, Water. The film, whose shooting was forced to relocate secretly to Sri Lanka, stars Lisa Ray (Bollywood/Hollywood), Seema Biswas (Bandit Queen), and Bollywood hearthrob (and Peta Spokesman) John Abraham. It is finally making its way through the film fest circuit, recently playing to a full house at the 30th Toronto International Film Festival, and appearing at Washington D.C.s recent SALTAF. The preview screenings, and the audiences reactions’ to the film must have been great because it turns out the film will be distributed in the in the U.S.by Fox Searchlight (MongrelMedia has Canadian distribution and is set to release the film on November 4), the house that distributed wildly successful Bend It Like Beckham. What does this mean for us, the audience? We’ll actually be able to see the movie without having to travel far and wide to find the one theater in our state showing it.
View the trailer for the film here. Incidentally, those of you lucky enough to have access to Canadian Bravo will have the opportunity to catch two special episodes of Scanning the Movies, which will focus on the making of Water with part one airing on October 28 and part two on November 4.
The link doesn’t work for the trailer :-(. Try this one: Water- Trailer
hehe never mind. sajit was one step ahead of me!
mebee i’m bizarro, but the background music always sounds the same to me in regards to brown movies.
razib .. …background music always sounds the same to me in regards to brown movies
Yeah! and it has to rain with that music.
don’t know about anything else, but Lisa Ray is HRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR HOT
hopefully won’t have to travel far and wide to see it here in Georgia….
Jaspreet, how do you pronounce that?
John Abraham is hot too.
One more reason for my ‘modern’ friends to ask me – “did you also get married in childhood?”. (I said, “I wish” :)). Deepta Mehta needs to find something that glorifies India in the international arena rather than just find its pitfalls that are not no longer prevelant.
hammer_sickel
Yes – but its her artistic right to make a movie like that. And how would she get noticed if she didnt make a film about sensationally backward India? Selling tickets and the kudos of the white man is what is important to brace filmakers like her.
Cynicism aside it all depends on how she deals with the subject matter – by all reviews she pulls it off. Good luck to her.
I had a chance to catch “Water” at SALTAF and (surprisingly) really, really, really enjoyed it. I like “Earth” a lot – although I also liked the book it was based on a lot – but didn’t care much for “Fire.” (I suppose “Fire” was an important film but it was so poorly written.)
I was very cynical about “Water” too; I was expecting sensationalism. In “Water,” Mehta could have devolved into sentimentality and cheesiness, but she handles the film, and the subject matter, well. It’s sad, and real, and thought-provoking. It’s also a beautiful film with many beautiful faces. The little girl – a new Sri Lankan actress – steals the show.
Definitely worth a look-see.
thanks for the first-hand heads up, Rani! I don’t know if I’ll drop $125 to see it at the IAAC film festival in a few weeks, but good to know it’s worth seeing.
Speaking of IAAC, w00t mutineer Nina P and “Sita Sings the Blues” inclusion in the film festival!
Deepa Mehta: Godmother of Anti Hinduism
Few Quotes from an article published here http://p081.ezboard.com/fhinduunityhinduismhottopics.showMessage?topicID=26772.topic
In Fire, she projects the idea that Hindu traditions of abstinence drive neglected housewives into lesbian relationships. In her new film Water, she links sexual exploitation of widows to the ancient Hindu traditions of abstinence involving widows. Both films delve into bizarre, obscure, and virtually non-existent practices in India.
Deepa Mehta has embraced her role with gusto. Recently, the AIDS Committee of Toronto outraged the entire Hindu community by putting on a fashion show featuring scantily clad transsexuals dressed as Hindu deities. To their credit, the AIDS Committee issued an apology on their website (as well as an apology addressed to our organization) when challenged on their indiscretion by a broad range of Hindu groups. These groups included the Alliance for South Asian AIDS Prevention, Hindu Conference of Canada, and Vishnu Mandir. The lone dissenting voice was Deepa Mehta, who publicly stated that she did not see anything offensive about the show.
Shame on you people to promote something that shows that your own culture is henious and beneath the standards of a modern society.
I beg your pardon? Did you come here to have a discussion, or just to insult?
Surely you mis-typed and didn’t mean to imply that “our culture” (and yours?) is heinous and beneath the standards of modern society… perhaps you feel the above-mentioned event perpetuates such inaccuracies?
DesiDancer,
I think S Jain means that the film depicts a negative version of Indian/Hindu culture; I don’t think he/she was implying that he/she necessarily agrees with any negative images which the film may be perceived to be promoting.
You are right DesiDance.
I meant to say, shame of SM bloggers for promoting a film that intends to falsly justify that Hindu culture is heinous and beneath the standards of a modern society.
Yeah, woman with a voice = anti-Hindu. Why not strengthen your argument and call Mehta a slut too?
Thanks for the plug, DesiDancer! It’s true, tickets to opening night are $150 (gasp) or $300 including the “Gala Dinner” (which I won’t be attending, unless someone rich wants to take me there on a date) but the rest of the shows – including the shorts program with “Sita Sings the Blues” – are a mere $10, so come on down.
Ha! I was waiting for that. I’m in the mood to pick a fight after that last post too.
S Jain- where does Deepa Mehta say our culture is heinous?? I get that she’s made a film about some issues that may be outdated or not the practice of the common citizen… but then again nobody got pissed off when “Deliverance” was made, as if it made Americans out to be a nation of inbreeding sodomists. Hey, it happens (not places I vacation in…) but like “Water”, I hardly feel it’s accurate to chalk up as a slam on the entire way of life…
So Nina how does a film made in English for an audience outside India help US Indians to get over such customs? We are never going to understand it as itÂ’s in English or even if itÂ’s dubbed in Hindi (the language of the culture it comments on) most of us wouldnÂ’t be able to understand it as we hardly see artsy movies.
Oh but then I think itÂ’s a movie made to entertain its targeted audience. Right?
And no i see no need to call a women slut. But we know her credentials and good intentions. WasnÂ’t she same woman who choose name of two most revered Hindu goddess for its lesbian characters in a previous movie? I guess she did that because in Hinduism there are only 2 names for female – Radha & Sita.
DesiDancer, Was Deliverance made by Americans in Russian? Thanks!
Sorry about that id in last comment. Not sure how thats appearing there. May be typed it at wrong place. The last comment was by me.
Oh get over yourselves already. She made a movie about a certain subculture in India in which some folks are maltreated. Sure it’s rare, but it’s out there and she wanted to make a film about it because she thought it might be thought-provoking and interesting.
Plenty of films are made that cast different cultures in a negative light. If you’re insinuating that the NRI/desi/foreign population will see the movie and assume that this is the Hindu way of life in India, you’re really underestimating global intelligence.
To clarify, Water is a Hindi Language film, with English subtitles. Perhaps before commenting on the merits of this film, one should see the film first.
Rupa you and your ilk also need to get over with “Woman with Voice” tag for Deepas. Yeah she made a movie about a sub culture to make money and we are fine with that. Her voice here is foreign and in no way will affect plight of those this movie is about. How come the movie is thought provoking and to whom? The audience itÂ’s been made for never experienced such thing so i donÂ’t think it can bring a change in their thoughts.
Vick’s bent out of shape because she made a movie with (gasp!) lesbians named Sita and Radha. And she portrayed said lesbians sympathetically! Like they were…actually HUMAN! How could she? A high crime against Hinduism, I tell you!
Mehta’s films don’t give “Indian culture” a bad name. Vick’s comments do.
Sajit, you took the words right out of my mouth. Maybe some of the posters here should watch the film before commenting on it.
On a somewhat different note, I thought “Fire” was an awful film: first, she should have made it in Hindi, as opposed to in English. Making it in English suggests that it is targeted at a niche audience (one, I might add, that is socio-economically different from the “subjects” of her film). Second, I am not sure if the film is very sympathetic toward same-sex relationships, since it seems to me to feed into the stereotype of “women neglected or ill-treated by mean turn to each other,” and there is already too much of that in India. I mean, obviously Mehta is free to make whatever film she wants (and I wish she had been allowed to make Water in India as she had originally planned), but I for one find such a view of lesbian relationships a tad disturbing. Third, the film was marked by some really shoddy characterization: virtually every male character in the film is not only one-dimensional, but is “flat” and cartoonish to the extent that one wonders if they possess any interiority whatsoever.
To clarify, Water is a Hindi Language film, with English subtitles.
That being said, I am looking forward to Water for the AR Rahman soundtrack (he once said he thought this was his best work; that’s a tall claim, even from the master, but if it’s even half as good as what I think is his best work, it’ll be pretty damn good)…I wish I were looking forward to the film, but barring Earth I don’t think Mehta is a competent filmmaker: both Fire and Bollywood/Hollywood were wretched.
uhh… where does one begin
more discomfiting than these portrayals is the preening and fawning that the spineless 1G,2G’s do when said, “oh! you’re indian. but you’re so different”, and right then the hating starts to ooze out as a noxious film hardening into an exoskeleton of a strange hue.
-silence-
-clicking of shells –
“Boo.Boo.”
“Get off the box, you pig”.
“Gah!” says he, as he strides off.
Mehta’s films don’t give “Indian culture” a bad name. Vick’s comments do.
Stop BSing Nita. That was a valid question. Dont twist and turn it. My comment has hardly anything to do lesbiens. Hinduism is a lot about Symbolism. And in current Indian society Radha and Sita aint considered as lesbiens. Deepa used those two names to sensationalize the movie. SM goes against every business which puts pictures of hindu gods on some of the items. Why it does it? I see nothing wrong in seeing Ganesha on top of a toilet seat. You think defecating represents something bad?
Very True Umair. Fire depicted lesbians in worse way possible. Stereotypical way most male (atleast Dilli one) thinks of lesbian (which is lesbians are those who cant find a guy…a virtual rejects).
Are you intentionally equating lesbians with toilets? Because it sure reads that way.
Are you intentionally equating lesbians with toilets? Because it sure reads that way.
DesiDancer said:
well thats cause u is a DesiDancer. But what abt all those other ppl who don’t know much abt India from a cultural perspective, other than it being the arranged marriage capital of the world. In this case the ONLY view prevails.
As much as I would hate for that to happen, I don’t believe any of us readers here are in a position to rebute this cause our cultural understanding is a LOT more than that. We need to get in some of those guys Jay Leno gets on his show and quiz them afterwards.
Vick, I don’t understand this comment. Can you expand this explanation? What’s a Dilli one?
I am sorry I have never met her and I don’t know her personally, therefore I can’t call her “slut” at this moment. But since when “women with a voice = anti-Hindu”. In case you didn’t know, Hinduism is the only religion where one worships even women as a goddess. You are defending her right to make this movie because you very likely grew up in a Hindu family and society.
She has absolutely every right to make any movie she wants. But I am want to know what is her motive in making movies which continuously depicts Hindus and Hindu god and goddess in bad light. 1) Is she purely working for the profit motive? 2) Is she deliberately trying to depict Hindus in a bad light? (It certainly seems that way, as mentioned in previous posts by other authors ..i.e. Sita & Radha etc.) I am sure even you agree that it can’t be just coincident that Deepa Mehta chose to name two lesbians Sita and Radha. 3) Is she too ignorant to know that the issues in her movie don’t apply to 99.99% of the Hindu population? 4) If she does indeed cares about the issue, then what good is it to show them to an International Audience? They can’t do anything about it, besides make fun and/or sympathsize with fellow desis on how horrible their life must have been, if they lived in India.
I haven’t watched the movie, and I will watch it when it start playing on a nearby theater. But after looking at the trailer of the movie (and from previous movies) it is clear that this movie only intends to highlight a bizarre, obscure, and virtually non-existent practices and portray it as the common practice in Indian Villages.
Ang: I think Vick is saying that most Delhi men view lesbians as those who can’t “get it on” with men for one reason or another, or as sexually frustrated because they have been deprived of “normal” relations with men, etc. etc. In my view “Fire” perpetuates this view, and I do not believe one does the legitimacy of same-sex relationships any favor by trivializing them in this way, and by making them conceptually dependent on heterosexual relations.
Ang Dilli is the real name of Delhi.
Atleast Dilli One = Those who live/belong to Delhi
I can only talk about Delhi as i am from there.
Excellent points S. Jain, especially:
I also second Vick when he says:
D. Mehta’s words are mere echo’s of Pat Robertsons’ (he said: Wherever you find this type of idolatry, you’ll find a grinding poverty. The land has been cursed). By supporting D. Mehta you are indirectly supporting Pat Robertson’s agenda – “Hinduism is demonic”.
thought you might be interested in this. progressive peeps in T.O. have been critical of Mehta and Water…
Water: Drenched in ‘Colonial Benevolence’
By: Kamal Arora, Saydia Kamal, Usamah Ahmad
With Vancouver International Film Festival tickets in hand, the three of us waited in a ridiculously long cue to enter a film five years in the making: Deepa Mehta’s “Water”. The hype has been intense because the filming was shut down in India, forcing the production team to relocate to Sri Lanka. No doubt, we thought, the line-up represented the controversial stances Mehta has made in past films and we were eager to watch her last installment in the element trilogy which included “Fire” (1996) and “Earth” (1998). Unfortunately, we were disappointed and at times offended with both the film and our theatre experience.
“Water” is set in colonial 1938 India. It follows the life of a recently widowed child, Chuyia (Sarala), who is sent to a widows’ ashram near the Ganges River in Varanasi. Chuyia befriends Kalyani (Lisa Ray), the resident beauty of the ashram, who falls in love with Narayan (John Abraham). Though marrying a widow was taboo in segments of Hindu society at this time, Narayan’s Ghandian thinking transgresses this boundary. However, their love cannot blossom because of plot twists and fateful circumstances.
Though the film attempts to illustrate issues facing women in late colonial India, Mehta falls into orientalist imagery. She endorses notions of ‘colonial benevolence’ that helped rationalize the British administration of India. Imperialists have used the plight of the ‘oppressed Eastern woman’ to justify their exploits. Sati (widow burning), oppression of widows and child marriage were particularly isolated as examples of the backwardness of indigenous culture and the need for intervention; superior European morals were needed for a civilizing mission. We are not arguing that the traditional Hindu system is not discriminatory against women. Mehta, however, simplifies its complexity and ignores how the ‘women’s cause’ was manipulated by the Empire. First-wave feminists also maintained a wounded attachment to, for example, sati to justify their need to be partners in the Empire as civilizing agents. “Water” does nothing to challenge this by perpetuating notions of victimized Indian women lacking agency or means of resistance within the context of past and current imperialism.
The women of the ashram are represented as meek lambs who, due to the backward nature of Hindu tradition, lead miserable lives. They are seen begging for coins, being scolded by passers-by who fear being polluted, turning to prostitution for livelihood, and visiting a Brahmin priest to learn about their degraded incarnation as women, and so on. These women are vulnerable and hopeless. Although one character, Shakuntala (the strongest performance in the film played by Seema Biswas), begins to question her situation, this avenue and her own agency are ultimately unexplored fully. Why does Mehta essentialize their positions as being merely that of ‘victims’ instead of struggling women? We are not being apologists to certain Hindu conventions around widowhood, but questioning why their lives are represented as hopeless instead of active struggles for survival, for spiritual growth and for enlightened renunciation of material needs. The theme of prostitution exemplifies this point.
Mehta constructs widows as so vulnerable, they are forced into prostitution. Again, she denies them agency: why does Kalyani’s life lead to an ultimate demise due to shame surrounding prostitution? Why can Mehta not have a character that actively chooses to be a prostitute instead of leading a life in the ashram?Though circumstance can lead women into unwanted professions, Mehta emphasizes ‘tradition’ and ‘culture’ as the roots for these situations and decontextualizes them from colonial dynamics. This is irresponsible given how the image of victimized Eastern women has justified (and justifies) imperialism.
Mehta further constructs a male savior as the route for redemption through Narayan. At one point in the film, Narayan and Kalyani discuss the changing nature of tradition, and how to retain ‘good’ traditions while casting away the ‘bad.’ When Narayan poses the question as to who will decide which traditions are to be kept and which ones are to be discarded, Kalyani answers, “you.” Here we see a male, educated within the colonial system as a lawyer, come to save the tragic beauty from the backwardness of tradition; a male who once again, holds decision-making power. Indeed Gandhi occupies a similar position in the film: he is a colonial-educated lawyer who also comes as savior, preaching Hindu reform and national unity while also touching the heart of Shakuntala. Both Narayan and Gandhi represent enlightened, educated men rescuing the oppressed from Hindu culture.
What can you do? We think you have done enough, thanks.
The question and answer period was an experience in itself. We were in the presence of Deepa Mehta herself, who had changed her flight to make the screening. She said her intention in making the movie was to “move people.” Indeed the question asked by an audience member, “What can we do for them from here?” appeared to appreciate this goal. This question is the result of representing women as being so helpless and that they need outside help. Her story is crafted in such a way that no other responses except paternalistic concern can be expected. Indeed his question ignored the powerful women’s movement in India that, among other things, has challenged the legal status of widows. Luckily, Mehta replied that it is important first to fix “our world” before treading out to sea.
Another person asked how Mehta chose the cast. Mehta specifically stated that she had selected Lisa Ray to play Kalyani because she was ‘pure’ ‘fragile’ and ‘vulnerable.’ This characterization is problematic as here Mehta is reinforcing the stereotype of docile, demure and pristine femininity as the ideal form of South Asian womanhood. Though it may be coincidence, there are problematic associations between Kalyani’s supposed purity and her very fair-skin. Upon seeing Kalyani for the first time, Chuyia exclaims in awe that she is an ‘angel.’ It is no surprise that this fair-skinned beauty is also the coveted prostitute whose wages keep the ashram alive. Mehta thus does not engage with feminist concerns around dominant conventions of beauty, colour and feminine roles; rather, she reinforces them.
We nervously asked Mehta how she negotiates making a film about themes so easily adopted by the discourse of ‘benevolent colonialism’ in today’s context of imperialism where Eastern women’s causes are similarly manipulated. She did not offer a real response, just that she felt we gave her an “essay on Edward Said.” She claimed her film was not about colonialism but rather Hinduism and that has nothing to do with colonialism. We were unimpressed: she made a period film set in colonial India, how can she claim that Hinduism in that period was untouched by colonialism?
Perhaps this contradiction mediated our experience in the theatre itself. Given our history as colonized people, sitting in a room with many, many white gazes again forced us to embody this historically subjugated experience within the politics of that theatre. Throughout the showing of the film, we were bombarded with audience-members around us making “tsks-tsks” and sympathetic noises. In the act of making a film about colonial India, Mehta adopted the role of the ‘native informant’ who exposes to the Canadian audience the reality of our backward, culture. We occupied an awkward relationship in that room: though we were represented on film, many around us sounded like they wished to save us from ourselves. In that space, we, like the characters in Water, became subjects of colonial benevolence.
rain said
-chuckle- ‘native informants’ – i like that.
yup mehta’s one of them… credo is to bring them all down, so she looks good in comparison
i share the authors’ anger – been there … all these ‘native informants’ … want to succeed in life – prop me/us up – i’m the core audience – i’m freaking blazing the trail you’re walking on – but what these people do is create an environment which alienates me from the society i live in – cuts me off at the knees – freaking turdblossoms.
sure – freedom of speech and all that – but this isnt market driven – she’s sucking on the teats of the federal government – canadian content, my ass – what canadian content… – suck suck suck – make a movie about cod fishermen in the maritimes – why blow tax payer money, my money, in indulging your inner toadie. but you cant do that… because you’re a lousy filmmaker who’s found a calling in life as a toadie turdblossom
Supposedly, the closing title cards in the movie claim “There are 34 million widows in India (2001)”.
What more proof do Deepa’s saviour need when they claim she is being hypothetical or not anti-Indian culture.
She systematically avoided to point out that the most powereful women in India today is a WIDOW!! (Sonia Gandhi). She purposely forgot to point out that there are at least 4 women CM’s. She purposely forgot to point out that India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh already have or had a women leader (Indira Gandhi) – compare that to the west!
She purposely forgot to mention that Hindu’s, on banks of Ganges” worship the “female river”. Why isnt she making a movie on Jhansi ki Rani???? (Deepa would say, “Who?”).
Oh so Mehta makes this films (or that crap she makes and insists on calling it a film) on Canadian tax payer’s money?? I didnt know that. Now that I know it explains some things.
Well,… “Sam and me” was ok.
my musings on the filmic work of ms.mehta….i think she panders a little too much to western sensibilities…arguable that though!
fire was ok….it did manage to paint a very real picture dreary delhi colonies…and bored, desperate housewives.
i loved earth but that was author-backed…bapsi sidhwa’s ice candy man…which i thought was an eloquent representation of being parsi at that time…the book i mean….still undecided on the movie. it did have its moments though. but for films on partition and its aftermath – these are worth a look-see – garam hawa, pinjar, khamosh paani and waqt(the old one). though there still hasnt been a film that has captured enough of the pathos yet, methinks.
I am so happy she decided to do away with nandita das for water…she’s a good actress but just very same-y…lisa ray rocks…her histrionics are often questionable…case in point – disastrous kasoor which had very good music tho.
as for bollywood hollywood…there were only three good things, moushumi, dina and lisa.
i think her films are made by the actors within them…as a director…I dont really think she commands much merit. mira nair any day.
on the subject of widows…chokher bali was ok if a little convoluted..hoping water will be a little meatier
Mehta’s actually made one purely Canadian content film; The Republic of Love, based on the Carol Shields novel. And guess what? It was crap: the woman doesn’t know what subtlety is, and her ham-fisted approach didn’t do justice to the rather delicate novel. The shiny patina of exotica is what saves Mehta from being recognized as the mediocrity that she is: that, and the predicable outrage from cultural conservatives.
Amba writes:the predicable outrage from cultural conservatives.
While it is true that there are some cultural conservatives who opposed her movie, it does not necessarily mean that all those who oppose her movie are cultural conservatives.
I, for one, oppose her movie because
M. Nam
The whole world must see the film RAIN …
Now is the time to pick up the Hearts of Women and Children …
RESPECT ALL LIFE NOW